总统真的很想要一个全国范围的登记选民数据库。但他再次差强人意。
The president really wants a national database ofed voters. He’s come up way short — again.
在他的第一个任期内，唐纳德·特朗普总统成立了一个委员会，以调查选民欺诈行为。该委员会要求各州提供选民名单，但各州一致拒绝。密西西比州深具保守倾向的共和党州务卿德尔伯特·霍塞曼告诉该委员会“去墨西哥湾跳水吧”。特朗普的委员会最终土崩瓦解，就在其启动失败仅几个月后就宣告解散。
In his first term, President Donald Trump established a commission to investigate voter fraud. It requested states’ voter files, though they uniformly declined. Mississippi’s deeply conservative Republican secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann, told the commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”Trump’s commission imploded, disbanding just months after its failure of a launch.
在特朗普的第二个任期内，司法部民权司不再请求，而是直接起诉各州索取选民名单，要求而非请求。至少有18个州自愿提供了数据。其余州的官员——无论是共和党还是民主党——均表示拒绝。
In Trump’s second term, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division instead went after the voter files, demanding rather than asking. At least 18 states voluntarily provided data. The rest, led by officials both Republican and Democratic, said no.
从2025年9月开始，司法部基本上对所有未配合的州提起了诉讼。联邦地区法院已对26起案件作出裁决，司法部的战绩是0胜26负。（加上上诉阶段的0胜1负。）特朗普的民权司与2016-17赛季惨不忍睹的克利夫兰布朗队之间的主要区别在于：尽管布朗队在两个赛季中至少赢了一场比赛，而司法部却连一场胜利都没有。
Starting in September 2025, the DOJ sued, essentially, every state who hadn’t fallen in line. Federal trial courts have ruled on 26 cases, and the DOJ’s record is 0-26. (Plus 0-1 on appeal.) The main difference between Trump’s Civil Rights Division and the woeful 2016-17 Cleveland Browns: Across two seasons, at least the Browns managed one win.
但上周五，法院又作出了更加严厉的裁决。此前的裁决都是针对各个州的具体情况，主要讨论的是美国司法部（DOJ）是否拥有要求各州提供相关文件的法定权力（答案始终是否定的）。周五，华盛顿特区的一家联邦法院作出的裁决指出：整个行为从一开始就是违法的——不仅美国司法部无权要求各州提供这些文件，而且即使各州自愿提供这些文件，美国司法部的行为也违反了联邦法律。
But last Friday brought an even more emphatic shellacking. The rulings until then had been state-specific and turned on whether the DOJ had statutory authority to demand the files (the answer: unanimously, no). Friday’s decision, from a D.C. federal court, said the entire enterprise was unlawful from the start — not only that the DOJ lacked authority to demand the files, but also that it violated federal law when states voluntarily provided them.
尽管这起诉讼属于民事案件，但法院的裁决表明：美国司法部在接收每个州的文件时，其工作人员都可能构成了联邦犯罪。美国司法部表示正在“审查”这一裁决。
And though the lawsuit was a civil case, the court’s findings support the notion that somebody at the DOJ committed federal crimes for each state file they took in. (DOJ says it is “reviewing” the decision.)
这里的主要法律依据是1974年颁布的《隐私法》——这部法律是在水门事件之后制定的，它体现了人们对联邦政府收集美国人个人信息的合理质疑。该法律要求政府在收集新的个人数据（或以新的方式使用现有数据）之前，必须公开发布通知，并对以下基本问题作出解答：你们要收集哪些人的信息？为何要收集这些信息？哪些人可以访问这些信息？这些信息是如何被保护的？任何对数据收集项目稍加思考的人都应该能够回答这些问题。
The primary restriction here is the Privacy Act of 1974, a post-Watergate statute that reflects well-earned skepticism about federal dossiers on American citizens, and demands an opportunity for public discussion before the government collects new data on individuals (or uses old data in new ways). The statute requires a published notice with answers to basic questions: What are you collecting about whom, why are you using it, who’s got access and how is it safeguarded? It’s the sort of thing anyone giving half a second of thought to a data project should be able to answer. The DOJ never bothered.
然而，美国司法部根本无视这些法律规定。在选民信息收集工作已经全面展开之后，美国司法部却援引了一项早在1983年发布的通知作为依据；当时，美国司法部的民权部门曾向公众表示，他们可能会收集“调查对象”以及民权侵权“受害者”的相关信息。显然，一个负责调查民权案件的政府机构自然会收集受害者、加害者和证人的相关信息。
Instead, well after the voter file effort was thoroughly underway, the DOJ pointed backward to a filing with origins in 1983, when the Civil Rights Division notified the public that it might collect information on “[s]ubjects of investigation” and “victims” of civil rights violations. It’s obvious that a government agency investigating civil rights claims would collect information on victims, perpetrators and witnesses.
特朗普领导的美国司法部实际上是在利用1983年的那份通知来为自己“开脱责任”——仿佛那份通知已经赋予了他们收集所有美国人选民记录的权力。华盛顿特区法院在周五的裁决中正确地指出了这种论点的荒谬性。
Trump’s DOJ essentially said the 1983 notice put everyed American on notice that the department could vacuum up their voter records. Friday’s D.C. court decision correctly found that argument preposterous.
而故意在未经任何基本通知的情况下收集美国公民的信息？这显然属于联邦犯罪行为。
And willfully collecting data on Americans without the basic notice? That’s a federal crime.
司法部为何一开始要费心做这件事？有三种可能性，坦率地说，都相当愚蠢。
Why would the DOJ have bothered with this effort in the first place? There are three possibilities, all admittedly pretty stupid.
第一种：司法部律师想在老板面前显得忙碌。民权司快速清理了许多对传统民权执法感兴趣的人才。针对带有删减数据的选民名单展开行动，既是一个有趣的下一步，也是有事可做。
The first: DOJ lawyers wanted to look busy for the boss. The Civil Rights Division quickly purged much of its talent interested in traditional civil rights enforcement. Going after voter files with redacted data was an intriguing next step, and also something to do.
第二种：他们相信了宣传。也许他们认为这些文件会揭露大规模欺诈，特别是由非公民实施的欺诈，从而为合法的执法行动铺平道路。一次又一次的实际审查显示，选举官员在保持名单清洁方面做得很好。但喝下太多“Kool-Aid”会让人对不存在的欺诈泉源产生“证据”的渴望。
The second: They believed the hype. Maybe they thought the files would reveal massive fraud, particularly by noncitizens, setting up legitimate enforcement efforts. Time and again, real reviews of the rolls find that election officials do a good job keeping things clean. But drinking that much Kool-Aid can leave you thirsty for “proof” of a fountain of fraud that doesn’t exist.
第三种：他们想要一个道具。十年来，总统反复撒谎称存在选举欺诈。如今“叫狼的男孩”再次喊狼，尚不清楚是否还有人在听。但也许他们认为，用选民名单的无意义打印件填满本来空空如也的曼尼拉文件夹，比单纯空白更具说服力。这一切本来就极不可能取得成效。
The third: They wanted a prop. For a decade, the president has repeatedly lied about election fraud. It’s not clear anyone is still listening when the Boy Who Cried Wolf cries wolf. But perhaps they thought it’d be more convincing to fill the otherwise empty manila folders of evidence with meaningless printouts of voter files. None of this was ever likely to bear fruit.
而且它也不太可能对中期选举产生重大影响。大多数州从未向司法部提供其文件。在那些确实提供了文件的少数州中，更少的州承诺会根据司法部反馈回来的不可靠垃圾数据采取行动。（大多数州比这更聪明。对于那些不聪明的州，周五的裁决可能会进一步推动因不可靠名单维护而引发的诉讼。）而司法部的可信度如今已经彻底崩塌，以至于无论是否有选民文件，没有人应该轻信其声明。
And none of it is likely to affect the midterms much. Most states never gave the DOJ their files. Of the few that did, even fewer pledged to act on whatever unreliable garbage data the DOJ sent back. (Most states are smarter than that. For those that weren’t, Friday’s opinion might further advance litigation over unreliable list maintenance performed as a result.) And the DOJ’s credibility has now cratered so thoroughly that nobody should take its claims at face value — with or without voter files.
因此，周五的裁决应当彻底制止这本来就笨拙的行动。但不要把无能等同于无害。该决定表明，国家最高执法机关正在违反联邦法律。这已经足以让人们对这场闹剧皱眉。
So Friday’s opinion should firmly stop what was already an inept effort. But don’t mistake inept for benign. The decision shows that the country’s chief law enforcement agency was breaking federal law. That’s reason enough to greet the farce with a frown.